International Law
Amirsaed Vakil; Ahmad Ebrahimi
Abstract
Introduction
The joy and excitement that sports bring to fans worldwide, together with the principles of fairness and sportsmanship, requires that the results of sporting events should remain unpredictable and be determined solely based on the skill and will of the athletes, free from any interference ...
Read More
Introduction
The joy and excitement that sports bring to fans worldwide, together with the principles of fairness and sportsmanship, requires that the results of sporting events should remain unpredictable and be determined solely based on the skill and will of the athletes, free from any interference by corrupt entities. The pervasive issue of match-fixing stands out as a significant threat, undermining the very essence of unpredictability in sports results. Now considered as a modern symbol of corruption in the field of sports, match-fixing has evolved into a transnational and cross-border problem as it is associated with gambling, sports betting, and international organized crime. The commercialization of sports, together with the influx of substantial financial resources and wide media coverage, has increased the significance of sports results for both legal and illegal financial companies (Primorac & Pilić, 2020). Consequently, no sport or sports stakeholder remains immune to the consequences of manipulation of results. A report released by Sportradar shows a concerning trend in 2022, revealing the identification of 1212 suspected cases of match-fixing across 12 sports and 92 countries (Sportradar, 2023). In light of this alarming scenario, there is an urgent need to address match-fixing thoroughly by relying on the collective efforts and cooperation of all stakeholders in the field of sports.
Literature Review
A dominant theme in the mainstream literature on match-fixing is the relation between match-fixing and international organized crime, gambling, and legal and illegal betting platforms (e.g., Tweedie & Holden, 2022). There are also case studies focused on specific countries (e.g., Hessert & Goh, 2022). Therefore, the proposed conclusions often advocate for the adoption of criminal laws and regulations within national legal frameworks to address match-fixing (Smith, 2023). Concerning the related literature in Persian, there are a few studies within the sports law. These works predominantly dealt with match-fixing within the scope of domestic law rather than international law or specific sports fields (e.g., Sadati-Fallahabadi, 2021). The studies also offered non-legal solutions (e.g., Mallaei &
Afroozeh, 2021), or addressed the topic from the perspective of sports management and preventive strategies, proposing solutions such as education and the increased awareness to combat match-fixing (see Cheragh-Birjandi et al., 2020). The present study stands out by attempting to identify and analyze the legal nature of match-fixing as both a national and a transnational issue. By focusing on the structures of international sports law (e.g., the Court of Arbitration for Sport), this research aimed to provide a more accurate and nuanced assessment of regulations and the guarantees of their implementation, thus laying the groundwork for effectively confronting and addressing the issue of match-fixing.
Materials and Methods
The current study used a descriptive–analytical method to examine match-fixing, framing the topic within the international sports law and delving into both national and transnational dimensions.
Results and Discussion
According to the Macolin Convention (Council of Europe, 2014), match-fixing involves a multifaceted process with multiple actors that occurs due to sports-related motives—regardless of financial elements—or due to the motives of betting, gambling, or corruption. An analysis of match-fixing in international documents, such as the UN Conventions against Corruption and Transnational Organized Crime, reveals that while these conventions have established a significant international legal framework for corruption-relatedcrimes, they are applicable only when match-fixing is associated with offenses like bribery and organized crime. Moreover, even the Macolin Convention, specifically addressing match-fixing, has not yet achieved global recognition and serves only as the viable option to address the issue (Chappelet, 2015).
Prominent bodies in international sports law, such as the International Olympic Committee and the Court of Arbitration for Sport, have dedicated special attention to the issue of match-fixing. The International Olympic Committee has implemented numerous rules and regulations for preventing, educating, monitoring, and combating match-fixing, as outlined in the Olympic Charter. Following the measures of the International Olympic Committee, international sports organizations have taken significant measures in recent years to combat match-fixing. These efforts generally manifest as ethical and behavioral guidelines, information systems, early warning systems, integrity units, and educational programs (see Criminal Law Provisions for the Prosecution of Competition Manipulation: UNODC-IOC Study, 2016). The jurisprudence of the Court of Arbitration for Sport indicates the development of ratione materiae and personal jurisdiction in addressing match-fixing cases in recent years. To deal with match-fixing cases, the Court adopts a zero-tolerance approach, observing legal principles such as the legality of punishment, proportionality, non-interference, and the prohibition of double trial.
Conclusion
An examination of the performance of various international sports institutions reveals that, from the perspective of international sportslaw, match-fixing is inherently of a disciplinary nature and is treated as a violation of disciplinary standards. In essence, greater emphasis is placed on addressing match-fixing instances driven primarily by sports motives, be they financial or non-financial. This approach avoids associating stakeholders with other criminal activities.
Concerning Iran’s sports law, it is suggested that the shortcomings in the federation regulations be amended by providing a precise and consistent definition of match-fixing, making clear the instances of match-fixing, and developing ratione materiae and personal jurisdiction within the federations. To improve the prosecution process, a series of measures can also be taken, such as establishing a universal standard of proof for proving match-fixing violations, broadening the range of acceptable evidence, and adopting a coherent two-step procedure involving disciplinary and criminal proceedings (with due consideration of legal conditions)—akin to the model observed in UEFA.
Furthermore, the research highlighted notable gaps in international sports law, despite the efforts to establish a suitable international legal framework by the UN, the International Olympic Committee, and the Court of Arbitration for Sport. First, UN conventions, as globally accepted documents, do not specifically address the issue of match-fixing. Second, other declaration documents fall short of covering all forms of match-fixing. Even the Macolin Convention has yet to achieve universal acceptance. Third, the Court of Arbitration for Sport possesses limited executive power and holds a secondary responsibility in this regard. Therefore, it is suggested that the issue of match-fixing be explicitly introduced into international conventions in order to provide a rigorous legal framework for addressing it.
